ESE's Fi VS. EIE's Fi, ESI's Fe VS. EII's Fe
Do you think it is obvious that ESI focuses more on positive emotions than EII?
Do you think it is obvious that ESI focuses more on positive aspects of social behavior than EII?
Positive: hugging, cheering, smiling... Negative: mitigating, frowning, consoling...
Do you think it is obvious that EIE focuses more on negative relationships than ESE?
Do you think it is obvious that ESI is more strategic in social settings than EII?
Last edited by Petter; 11-19-2016 at 08:23 PM.
No. IMO, this is one of the weakest areas of the Russian interpretation of the signed elements. I've proposed something that seems to be somewhat more accurate, though the Fi part still needs work.
Last edited by Exodus; 11-14-2016 at 11:47 PM.
Okay, what have you proposed?Originally Posted by thehotelambush
My view is that +/- don't really work in Model A.
The way I see it is this:
The EIE's Fe is primarily about self-expression and the ESE's Fe is primarily about emotional openness. This part seems very clear.
The ESI's Fi is about making (primarily negative) interpersonal judgments (the opposite of emotional openness, in a sense), while the EII's Fi is more about limiting one's emotional communication to people or a way that one is comfortable with (which is sort of the opposite of self-expression). This part needs refinement though.
I've written more about it here.
Model A2? This is your new model A, right? There are at least two other model A2.
This is my model, yes. It's an extension of model A.
Really? I know about Model G and Model B but I'm not aware of any other model by that name.There are at least two other model A2.
I focus more on my own negative emotions and that causes a lot of depression and I focus a lot on everything in the world around me that's not ethical and that tends to frustrate me.
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Do you think ESI focuses less on negative emotions than you?
They talk about it more with their friends while I try hard not to talk excessively about all the details that go on because I want my friends to come to me to be their source of warmth and comfort. If it gets over the top I'll express one line statements and try not to elaborate until the pattern repeats. Se types tend to really hold onto all the details of events. I release it easily, I guess this is why I can remain in bad situations for a long time. Actually it's because I can empathize.
Honestly I don't think so. Determining breaking points is hard because it's so individual. Who's to say what the limits of being stoic are?
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Do you think it is obvious that ESI focuses more on positive aspects of social behavior than EII?
Positive: hugging, cheering, smiling...
Negative: mitigating, frowning, consoling...
Not sure. More likely to reprimand than to instruct
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Only the base and creative function are real
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Positivist types tend to be more positive and negativist types tend to be more negative. But I do not see ESI as more positive than EII generally, sorry. ESI and EII are both operating under the constraint of subjective ethics but ESI supports this with force, volition, manipulation of comfort and discomfort, etc. while EII supports it by setting up and observing the flow of situations abstractly. Without using socionics terms, people are probably going to pick the first as coming across "darker" most times, and if you survey villains (especially female ones) in movies, plays, musicals, operas, etc. you'll see tons of ESIs and very few EIIs. Please leave the "sensors are boring and dumb and intuitives are weird and cool" stereotypes at home. All of this stuff has very clear real-world correlates and without being anchored to that you're going to be lost.
First of all, positivist/negativist do not correspond to positive/negative. For example, ILI is negativist but is mostly positive (Ni+), and SLI is positivist but is mostly negative (Si-).
ESI is both negativist and (generally) negative, and I agree with your observations: "But I do not see ESI as more positive than EII generally".
But my question in OP is not about ESI's and EII's emotions (see editing).
Yes. Even to the detriment of the relationship at times. Short term profit v. Long term profit.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
Depends on what negative relationship means in this context. EIE identifies negative traits quicker in others, whereas ESE is more carefree in this regard.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
Unless youre both an ESE and a ESI, your post doesnt make sense.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
If you're talking to me then why don't you quote me?
But yes, I see I didn't read the second quote correctly now.
My point in the first response still stands.
Compared to EII I still think so. Im not going to refute your personal anecdote, but it does seem in line with my idea that strategically the ESI is less strategic long term (as gamma sf is prone to cutting people out entirely, and delta nf is more accepting or forgiving in this regard). Short term social strategy though, I think gamma sf is better than delta nf.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
Point conceded. Comparing Gamma Ethic types to Delta Ethic types really puts things in perspective.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
